20th Anniversary of the Death of Diana, Princess of Wales: August 31, 2017

[Skippyboo]

Let's not forget that the Queen's Private Secretary at the time was Robert Fellows who is married to Diana's sister Jane. Charles Spencer didn't need to talk to a low level palace flunky. His Brother in Law was the Queen's right hand man.

The Duke of Kent was 16 when he walked behind his uncle's coffin in 1952. William and Harry were teenagers not really little kids like JFK Jr and Caroline Kennedy

[Curryong]

The Lord Chamberlain's department organises funerals of that nature though, not the Queen's Private Secretary, and we don't know how close Robert Fellowes and the Earl were.

Harry was twelve, 13 in a few weeks. As someone who lost my mother at the same age (from cancer) I can say that at twelve you're still a child and feel lost, hurt and bewildered at what has happened in almost the same way as a younger child would.

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by Skippyboo

The Duke of Kent was 16 when he walked behind his uncle's coffin in 1952.

My point exactly. It looks like a RF tradition to me, and I'm pretty sure the idea to have the boys walk behind the coffin came from the RF themselves and/or their courtiers and probably had nothing to do with politicians like Tony Blair.

[Mermaid1962]

One wonders whether it might have been Robert Fellowes, Earl Spencer's brother-in-law.


[QUOTE=Curryong;2006140]

As for Earl Spencer, he specifically stated that it was 'a courtier' who told him that 'It was all arranged' that the boys would walk./QUOTE]

[O-H Anglophile]

I was 20 when my father died suddenly. It was horrible and I was in a fog for weeks. Losing a parent was vastly different than losing my grandparents, aunts or uncles. As bad as it was when I was 20 I can't imagine it happening when I was 12 or 15.

I said this earlier this year--William and Harry were in shock and vulnerable to persuasion. I doubt they really knew what to expect when they agreed to walk.

I don't care if a 16 year old walked behind his uncle's coffin in 1952--it wasn't his mother.

[Osipi]

[QUOTE=Mermaid1962;2006157]One wonders whether it might have been Robert Fellowes, Earl Spencer's brother-in-law.

Originally Posted by Curryong

As for Earl Spencer, he specifically stated that it was 'a courtier' who told him that 'It was all arranged' that the boys would walk./QUOTE]

We have to remember that at the time Robert Fellowes was not only private secretary to the Queen but he was also Diana's brother in law and involved in things from the family angle as well as from the royal household angle. Most likely he had been in discussions with Charles, Blair, The Queen, the people working on planning the funeral at BP and whomever else was involved in all of this.

I don't think in this scenario that any one person had the power to make a definitive decision of what would be but most likely if Fellowes told Charles Spencer that the boys had decided to walk, it was after all had been said and done and the boys had agreed to walk on that day. Fellowes is the most likely candidate too that would be the mediator between the different departments involved in the funeral planning and the Spencer family and was able to also be a spokesperson for the wishes of the Spencer family such as their wish that Diana would be interred in a private ceremony at Althorp following the public funeral service.

[O-H Anglophile]

Originally Posted by wyevale

I suspect if one asked four or five members of ANY Family to recall the feelings or motivation of any one of them during a MAJOR Family crisis 20 years past, one would get MANY varied versions.

I think this is true for many people--memories often become distorted in time, not always remembering things accurately or clearly. And is especially true when events are happening that are emotional and stressful.

[O-H Anglophile]

Originally Posted by Denville

Exactly Wyevale. It was a bad idea, the documentary It cuodl have been doene without dragging up old upsets and quarrels - it could have been a tribute to Diana as a mother and as a charity worker, and they could have spoken of their love for her, their grief and how they wnantted to continue with her work for people in need but they seem to have gone into sadnesses that are best left in the past..and left it open to others to bring up old issues that wold probably be best left behind for many more years.

The documentary was done as a tribute to their mother. William and Harry did not bring up old upsets or quarrels in the documentary at all. Saying they still mourn their mother and miss her cannot (and should not) be left in the past.

Other people with their own agendas are bringing up old issues...and those same people would have been doing it at this time anyway.

[duchessrachel]

Originally Posted by cepe

There are more and more negative articles being written in the UK.

.

Could you elaborate on that? I am in the US and don't have access to those articles. I often wonder how things like those interviews are perceived in the UK compared to how they are in the US.

[duchessrachel]

Originally Posted by cepe

Dman, You are tweeting as an American, talking about how this all looks in America.

I'm not - I read 90% of British press, listen to British radio and watch British news.

Its not all good news for the monarchy. I'm not talking about it disappearing tomorrow or even in the next 5 years. I'm talking about it being undermined.

I have started reading books on certain members of the British Royal Family. I have read about the Queen Mother, Diana, and am just about done with Ziegler's book on King Edward VIII. I have learned a lot about the way things used to be, and I wish things could go back a little to how they were when the Royal Family maintained a little more mystery about themselves. They are turning themselves into celebrities in many ways.

[XeniaCasaraghi]

Originally Posted by wyevale

Ah yes.. the exigencies of TAX exile...

The Earl is a piece of crap but you are letting your bias show. Everything he does is spinned to the negative with you and it makes your opinions lose substance.

[miss whirley]

Originally Posted by Dee Anna

What's not healthy about being told they have another Granny who loves them but lives in the sky (or where ever)?

I think "obsessively living in the past" because he talks to his children about Granny Diana is a bit of an exaggeration?

If you fully read my post you would have seen that I took issue with the word "constantly". Which is not the scenario you're describing at all. Any activity done constantly (with the exception of breathing) is usually obsessive and unhealthy. For example see the difference between - John Doe drinks alcohol regularly vs. John Doe drinks alcohol constantly.

I hope this clears up any confusion you had.

Originally Posted by Pranter

If Phillip did suggest or even encourage the boys to do it I am quite sure there's no way he would of done it if he thought it would hurt them. If someone wants to say Phillip (being not known for his sensitivity) urged them to do it then okay, but he wouldn't of done it knowing it would cause hurt.

My guess is the idea was floated by the grey suits or Blair etc due to the massive outcry at the perceived lack of reaction of the BRF to her death.


LaRae

I don't think Philip meant any harm. Remember the famous pictures of 16-year-old Philip walking in the funeral procession for his sister Cecilie, his brother-in-law, and his young nephews. Like Diana, they also had tragic and unexpected early deaths. Philip likely gave his grandsons advice from his own experience with public grief.

[XeniaCasaraghi]

This whole thing is just making me more tired of hearing about Diana; I had hoped the documentary wouldn't be negative and it wasn't but the same people are using it to spin the Saint Diana bs that I had wished had finally ceased.

[Curryong]

Duchessrachel, This is for better or for worse, a multi media age, something the royals didn't have to contend with when they were able to withdraw into their palaces and estates and, by and large, servants, the Press and officials were both discreet and reverential. It's much easier to maintain mystery in that sort of an atmosphere.

It's a fine balancing act to both maintain distance and respect but also give the public the idea that their RF is approachable and human. Sometimes it falls over one side of the tightrope a bit too much.

However, I can't see how, in an age of instant comment and discussion on Twitter and the demand for Royal stories of all kinds, how that particular genie of a pre 1960s royal family is going to be pushed back into the bottle!

[MARG]

Oh, the virtue of 20/20 hindsight. Charles S says he was "Lied to" about the boys. Pass the salt, please.

Originally Posted by Daily Mail

IAnji Hunter, Tony Blair’s head of government relations and his former ‘gatekeeper’ at No 10, has spoken publicly for the first time about the aftermath of Princess Diana’s death.

Laying bare the tensions that arose between the different factions in the run-up to Diana’s funeral, she remembers her first conversation with the PM following the news of the Princess’s fatal car crash in Paris in 1997.

‘I was on the phone to Tony and he got it straight away. The phrase was, “My God, these are enormous doings.” He told me: “We’ve got to be absolutely wise and sensible and focused”.’ (Marg: Thus "The Peoples Princess"?)

Hunter recalls her role on the Palace committee set up to organise the funeral. It wasn’t long before problems arose. ‘The most tension in the room always came from Charles Spencer’s people,’ says Anji.

The programme (7 Days that shook the Windsors) will claim Earl Spencer wanted to walk alone behind Diana’s coffin, but royal advisers were not happy.

Prince Charles was adamant that he also wanted to walk behind it. But the rest of the funeral team felt William and Harry, then 15 and 12, should be there, too. However, William was refusing to join the procession, saying he wanted to grieve privately.

Hoping to persuade William to change his mind, five days before the funeral on September 6, the team set up a telephone conference call with Balmoral via a big loudspeaker box on their conference table.

‘I can remember — it sends a tingle up my back, actually,’ says Hunter. ‘We were all talking about how William and Harry should be involved and suddenly from this box came Prince Philip’s voice. 'We hadn’t heard from him before, but he was really anguished.

'It’s about the boys,” he cried, “They’ve lost their mother.”
'I thought, “My God, there’s a bit of suffering going on up there.” ’

When Hunter’s husband Adam Boulton wrote about the same episode in his 2008 memoir, he recalled that Prince Philip actually used a profanity, so exasperated was he by Downing Street’s attempt to dictate the roles William and Harry should play at the funeral.

Charles S wanted to do his own piece of theatre and be the sole person walking behind the gun carriage. However, Prince Charles wanted to walk for himself and his family. Downing street wanted what it always wanted . . . it's own way.

[duchessrachel]

Originally Posted by Curryong

Duchessrachel, This is for better or for worse, a multi media age, something the royals didn't have to contend with when they were able to withdraw into their palaces and estates and, by and large, servants, the Press and officials were both discreet and reverential. It's much easier to maintain mystery in that sort of an atmosphere.

It's a fine balancing act to both maintain distance and respect but also give the public the idea that their RF is approachable and human. Sometimes it falls over one side of the tightrope a bit too much.

However, I can't see how, in an age of instant comment and discussion on Twitter and the demand for Royal stories of all kinds, how that particular genie of a pre 1960s royal family is going to be pushed back into the bottle.

I don't think the pre 1960's royal family will ever be back. I do think in this day and age they should be seen as more approachable. I think I was just born about 70 years too late

[royal rob]

Originally Posted by XeniaCasaraghi

This whole thing is just making me more tired of hearing about Diana; I had hoped the documentary wouldn't be negative and it wasn't but the same people are using it to spin the Saint Diana bs that I had wished had finally ceased.

If it disturbs you it's better to not read threads about Diana

[Denville]

well I think that it is hard to avoid stuff about Diana at times.. but I do like her so I'm happy to read threads on her..and I like to have a discussion on her. However, there are people with a violent dislike of her, who will never hear any praise of her without getting annoyed and there are people who are so passionately in her favour that they cant' hear any criticism of her. So it can be wearing to be a moderate Diana fan.
And I thin that this documentary, which I haven't seen but have read some of the stuff in the paper (directly taken from it).. is liable to provoke a good deal fo controversy. I DO believe ti would ahave been possible to avoid the more painful bits that are bound to lead to angry debate, if the boys and their advisers had edited a bit more...

[Denville]

Originally Posted by Osipi

I remember reading something along these lines too. It was a credible thing that should Charles have just walked behind the casket by himself (with Charles Spencer), it may have looked like he was a sitting duck for not only boos and hisses and signs of disapproval but perhaps also an assassination attempt.
Walking with his sons and his father gave the impression that it was "familY" walking behind Diana's casket.

It is IMO Normal practice, for the males relatives of a royal to walk behind the coffin, and so it was expected in a royal funeral that it would be the boys, with Charles S at least.. THat would have been the normal plan which they took from the QM's funeral plans which they had adapted.
But as they were very young, the RF probably DID debate if it was a good idea and probably Philip then got involved and said that he felt It would be the right thing for W and H to do, and that he would go with them as well, to make it easier...

[Denville]

Originally Posted by Mermaid1962

The Queen is a servant of the Government. If Tony Blair wanted the Queen to have her grandsons march behind their mother's casket, she'd be obligated to do it.

no, she's not obliged to force her grandsons to do something like this.. she is still the queen and their grandmother.